Bold new changes to junior cricket rules and game formats have the old-timers fuming. But what impact will modifying the game to meet the needs and wants of today’s kids?
My first game of junior cricket was in 1993, an under 12 C grade game in a suburban competition in Melbourne. In our batting innings, 51 wides were bowled. That’s 51 balls that did not land on the wicket. 51 balls that the batsman did not get to hit and the fielders did not get to field. 51 balls where the bowler felt embarrassed. And 51 balls where parents questioned what on earth they were doing with their Saturday morning.
People always accepted that this is how kids’ cricket is played – however unattractive and boring that may be.
Cricket Australia’s recent changes to the rules and format of junior cricket to prevent the wash, rinse, repeat cycle of the above have been met with much hand-wringing by the self-described ‘traditionalists’, who fear it will be to the detriment of the game they love.
This couldn’t be further from the truth. The game needs to change if it is to thrive and prosper, and these changes are a big step in the right direction.
Let’s take a look at where these changes have come from, what they actually entail and what the impact might be.
But first, a brief word on the state of play…
Cricket faces stiff competition
Kids and families have more ways to spend their leisure time than ever before and they’re choosing spend less of it playing sport.
In 2014, Roy Morgan Research found that Australian kids spent six-and-a-half times more minutes in front of screens than they did playing sport. In fact, sport ranked fifth in terms of time spent by kids behind the internet, watching TV, playing with/ talking to friends and computer/ electronic/ console games.
In such a competitive environment, sports that fail to provide a practical and attractive experience will struggle to get kids playing, let alone keep them coming back. So what does an attractive experience involve?
Kids just want to have fun
Kids’ wants and needs when it comes to participating in sport are pretty straight forward. In the younger age groups where kids are first taking up organised sports, they want to have fun with friends while learning, developing and experiencing success.
Parents also want their children to have these experiences, but with a stronger weighting on learning and development. The primary barriers for parents include time and cost, meaning cricket, with its associated costs and time requirements, falls to the back of the queue.
Changing the game
Cricket Australia looked at the way junior cricket is played and questioned the quality of the experience it delivers to kids.
It then set about a lengthy research and design process to develop, test and refine new rules, equipment and formats to address some of the barriers to a more attractive experience.
Detail of the changes can be found here. In summary:
• Equipment and field dimensions (length of pitch, boundary distance) are reduced; scaled according to the size, strength and skill of participants
• There are fewer players per team
• Game duration is shortened
• In younger age groups, batters face a defined number of deliveries, rather than being ‘out’ when they are dismissed
• All of the above conventions and formats ‘scale up’ as players grow and progress. Age guidelines are indicative and it is recommended that players progress according to ability rather than age.
This all seems logical. But a quick scan of social media will find a vocal core of dyed-in-the-wool cricket lifers who are adamant that these changes mark the beginning of the end. What are their objections?
Objection 1: Kids won’t develop skills because they aren’t playing the ‘real thing’
First, let’s talk about the ‘real thing’.
Critics of the new formats seem to focus on the rules and conventions such as the length of the pitch, number of players per team and duration of the game. But when I turn on the TV to watch a Test or One-Day International, I’m more interested in the action itself.
The ball is delivered on a flat trajectory, bouncing once before passing the batter, generally near where it was aimed and almost always within reach of the batter, tactically designed to bounce, swing, seam or spin.
Reaction time is minimal. Players have the ability to hit a bad ball into gaps and reach the boundary.
It is this movement of ball and player and execution of skill that constitute ‘real’ cricket.
By scaling the game to dimensions that more closely match the size and skill of its participants, the junior formats better replicate the ‘real thing’. Research undertaken by experts in skill acquisition and development found that the new formats lead to:
• More balls in play
• More contact made by batters
• More touches of the ball by fielders
• More balls hit on the offside (indicating more balls landing where they are intended and batters hitting them accordingly)
• More runs scored
• More boundaries hit.
By spending more time on task in these modified games executing more realistic skills against better quality batting and bowling, players’ skill development will be better, not worse. More importantly for the kids, it’s starting to sound more like fun than cricket!
Objection 2: Kids won’t learn to value their wicket if they don’t ‘get out’ for real
I sense that many of the critics have read a headline or someone else’s angry tweet before shooting this statement from the hip, so first let me clarify.
Batting for a minimum duration applies only to T20 Blast (an existing modified cricket development program played mainly by kids aged 7 to 9) and stage 1 (indicative age under 11). This means that kids ten years or younger who are still learning the very basics of the game get to face an equal number of balls regardless of their skill level.
If a batter is dismissed, four runs are added to the bowling team’s score, providing a reward for the bowler while equally acting as a deterrent to the batter.
With that clarified, the people pushing this argument are saying that a 10-year-old who loves his or her cricket so much that he or she sleeps with their bat all week waiting for game day to arrive has to trudge off the field, sit down and watch their friends play if they get out first ball – all in the name of ‘learning to value their wicket’. I can only assume that these people also replace Christmas presents with lumps of coal in their kids’ stockings when they misbehave.
Apart from being a terrible way to spend a Saturday morning, this practice reduces time on task, physical activity levels, skill development and ultimately fun. As a result, the game fails to deliver on the needs and wants for most kids and increases the likelihood of them dropping out.
Objection 3 – Talented players will be held back
Have you ever seen Steve Smith chase a rolling ball to square leg and sweep it off the ground from next to the umpire’s left foot? Me neither. In fact, I’m almost certain that he didn’t become the best batter in the world on account of his time spent playing such shots in the under 12s.
(AFP PHOTO / GREG WOOD)
The good news is that with bowlers bowling off a shorter pitch, the next generation of Steve Smiths and Meg Lannings will face better bowling, with less reaction time, providing a greater challenge and thereby sharpening their skills.
Similarly, the next Mitchell Starcs and Ellyse Perrys will be executing their skills with more effective and safe motor patterns, allowing them to focus on accuracy and the subtleties that differ them from the rest of us, rather than just trying to reach the other end.
It’s also worth pointing out that the recommendations specify that age is indicative and that talented players should be moved through the levels as their ability dictates, continually stretching, honing and developing their skills as they go.
What does all this mean?
A stronger, healthier game
While the grumpy old men are grumbling, the kids will be being more active, having more fun, practicing the right skills in the right way and getting better, faster. These changes are no silver bullet, but they will provide generations of kids with even more fun, enjoyment and reward than those who came before them.
It won’t guarantee they all want to play forever, but it will certainly help, and the more kids that play and fall in love with cricket, the healthier the game will be.
KW
Guest
I have joined this conversation 2 years on after googling this topic when finding out that my son's u/13 team is still playing "Mickey Mouse" cricket for 2019/20. None of the coaches/parents in my community can believe that 13 year olds are going to be still playing with short pitches and bowling/batting restrictions. My son has from the outset been playing in his right age group, and has been subjected to these rules being "rolled out" since 2017. His contemporaries who are playing an age up have been playing 2 day, traditional cricket for 3 years, and they are the ones being picked in representative squads. I see from this thread that there are actually people who support these ridiculous rules for 12 and 13 years olds. Simple solution - Div 1 plays plays traditional cricket, Div 2 mickey mouse. Right down to u/10's. Parents/kids make their own choice
Liam
Guest
Agree with some of your post; U10's is far too early to be playing truly competitive, 50 over a side cricket, you've still got half a side of first timers playing their first matches. I'd make that distinction at U13-14's, as the kids themselves are a bit more mature, and they are certainly more competitive. If the formats themselves only went to that point, and from that point it was genuine 11 a side hard ball cricket, I'd be behind it almost absolutely, but seeing as it isn't I wholeheartedly agree with you. It may be hyperbole to refer to the formats alone as the reason "... Australia will be at the bottom of the international cricket pile..." but it's warranted, somewhat.
Liam
Guest
I can't speak for all competitions, obviously, but in my region over the next few seasons the full junior formats are being phased in completely, as the limited player numbers/softened ball at the lower levels becomes all the incoming kids know, compared to U11's from last year and the year before having to go back to playing with a soft ball and with less players, but the first grade of proper cricket intended to be unaffected in my region - with full player numbers, a proper pitch length, and a full size ball - is U15's. The U13's play with a smaller ball, but still a hard one, off a shortened pitch, with 9 a side; this is Band 2 of the new formats. In this area, I have different concerns; namely, I know some absolute demons who could play in this age group, but are simply too fast to come off a shorter pitch with the hard ball. They'd kill a first year Band 2 player, let alone get them out. They're playing 15's; better for them, to get away from the formats, better for their opponents not to get hurt. My real issue is with the change of player numbers and the lack of a hard ball, not the shortened pitch. When you can hit a single off the bat wherever and however you hit it, there is no reward for good technique; this is at the very base level, when kids are forming habits that will stay with them for their entire cricketing careers! Even more, when there is only 5 fielders - and 40 metre boundaries - why on EARTH wouldn't you go for the six or the four over midwicket or square leg? 40 metre boundaries at maximum! This is intentional, as it supposedly increases the fun for the kids; never mind that in pursuit of fun the kid is learning the wrong thing, a bad habit that will limit them the second they get into U13's, let alone if they ever play turf cricket. Let's be clear; for my own side, I try to teach them the right way to do things, so that should they be confronted with sterner bowling they can survive. But it doesn't only come from me; kids parents want to see the boundaries, see their kids doing well, want the fours and the sixes. It's a superficial means of evaluating cricket, and it breeds a T20 mindset. I'm good with shortening the pitch length, to get more balls on the pitch; I can even understand why there are no wickets in Band 1 matches. But try telling a young but talented leggie that they are doing well, just their friend who bowls pace is taking wickets like crazy just because of what they bowl (if you can bowl on the stumps at pace, you're a shot at taking a wicket or two) while they're getting hacked, you can see why they'd stop bowling leg spin, can't you? A hard ball has a seam which grips far better than the soft things we use now, and 11 a side and longer boundaries - hell, I'd even accept 9 - means you can set a field to protect that young spinner from a slogger who keeps getting lucky.
Liam
Guest
In my first post to this article, I said this: "...it’s a cynical attempt to raise participation at the lower levels, in order to sell Big Bash memberships, to kids who the second cricket ceases to be fun anymore – because, all of a sudden, they’re going out, struggling to hit boundaries and unable to penetrate the infield and the runs have dried up – will up and leave for other sports." If I'm being truly cynical, this is what I think their intentions are. The Big Bash teams are marketing like crazy in clubland, and are marketing almost exclusively to the kids of the junior format age groups. In short, jeopardizing the techniques of future players in pursuit of greater profile and profits in the short to medium term.
JoM
Roar Rookie
It's interesting. When our younger son started playing rep cricket at Under 10 level, that was the last year it was 50 overs each. The Vics were changing their Under 10 rep kids down to 40 overs because they said the young ones couldn't handle it and NSW were going to follow suit the year after which we kind of disagreed with because they could handle it and loved playing a real 50 over game. As for bowling, some of the little ones can't even get the ball on the pitch at Under 8 or 9 level so for them the shorter pitch helps, but there are plenty who can and then there are the kids who can bowl off a full length pitch at Under 8 level. I'm not sure under the new rules at what age they are bowling off a full length pitch with a full team and the full amount of overs, but how are they going to go at Under 16 level when they go into a competition such as Green Shield (which is a NSW thing) where it is 60 overs each a game and all the grade clubs enter a team. Our older son started playing shires cricket at 14 because he was bored stiff with the club games and went into grade the year later and I think more and more you are going to see the "better" kids do the same thing.
Andrew Young
Roar Guru
May I ask what other motives are behind the changes?
Liam
Guest
Actually, I'd argue that the current malaise of quality talent going through the shield is the consequence of Cricket Australia's laxity during the 90's and early 2000's, when junior cricket was allowed more or less to do its own thing. As someone who played junior cricket over that time period, I can tell you that I'm the only one still playing cricket, from my own team and quite a few others. Most chose AFL, or stopped playing to finish school and never picked it back up again.
Liam
Guest
Thanks for your reply, Mark, but you've assumed I haven't seen these games in action. I'm the junior co-ordinator of my club, and I watched these formats develop; my competition was chosen to trial them, and I'm the coach of a girls side playing Band 1, so not only do I know a fair bit about the formats themselves - the way they play, the fact of shot selection, etc - but I am currently part of their evolution. So when I say that the bigger players who can hit across the line profit from the reduced fielders, I can say so having seen it. When I say that a young quick, playing her first season and bowling outswingers at good pace only to have kids plonk themselves in front of the wickets so as not to get bowled, and getting a single or a boundary if they're fortunate enough to hit it, I speak from experience. And when I say that there is little reward for good technique under the new formats, ask yourself this question; why would you play with a straight bat and score 16 - a single every ball, which is what happens when an U10 drives - when you can play nothing but pull shots with your feet planted in front of the stumps and score 20, or more if your eye's good? Your point regarding Crickets ability to evolve is interesting, as what WSC achieved was as good for test cricket as it was for the players themselves; it brought professionalism to the cricket world. It is exactly that professionalism that should be the goal for a young cricketer; the right technique, taught from a young age so as to create the right muscle memory, so that when a cricketer turns 15-18, they have the combination of timing, strength and technique to survive good bowling on turf and to score to all parts of the ground. Every change cricket has brought in has influenced, not overtaken, red ball cricket, and so will these formats. You are correct in that it's unlikely you will convince me of anything, as the evidence of my own experience with the formats themselves - and how the rest of junior cricket will and has begun to interact with them - will provide a generation of cricketers with bad habits, all in the interests of increasing participation, and that's if I'm being generous about CA's motives.
Andre Leslie
Roar Guru
Really interesting analysis .. thanks for the info and the thoughts. I agree that making cricket more accessible for youngsters is key... All administrators are going to have to do this sort of thing to attract a broad spectrum of young people to sport in the future. The internet generation is well and truly here.
Mark Simpson
Roar Rookie
Hi Liam. Couldn't agree more with your comments about the importance of coaching on childrens' enjoyment of cricket, and probably any other sport. I don't think it is an unfair statement to say that it is the number 1 driver of a good experience. It's interesting that you say cricket doesn't need to change. I would argue cricket's ability to change and evolve is the reason it has thrived, World Series Cricket and the T20 evolutions being the case studies. As for young techniques, with smaller fields and less fielders the good 'little' batter will be rewarded for his or her technique by being able to find gaps and reach the boundary without "slogging over mid-wicket". The better quality bowling over a short distance will help hone their defensive skills as well. As for bowlers, they will be able to deliver the ball the required distance with a safe action, being able to bowl more accurately and being rewarded for their efforts by seeing the ball going where they want it and reaching the keeper on the full will provide enjoyment. As for the less fielders, I think few of the U11s (7 players per team) will be too fussed about their economy rates, but as you say, it's a batter's game so they may as well get used to it! I doubt I have changed your opinion, but I ask you to keep an open mind and, if you get an opportunity, go and watch one of these games in action. Regards, Mark.
HarryT
Guest
It is a huge issue, but will never happen. You will understand better as the kids get older. I had a 13 y. o. kid who was on a score of 94, however was so physically exhausted he could hardly hit the ball. The whole team was really excited for him, but four of the Dads came up to me and told me to retire him because we were running out of time if we wanted to go for an outright win.
Liam
Guest
Here's my issue, though; why be a bowler? Less fielders, shorter boundaries. Band 1 has 7 players, so 5 fielders; where's the need to judge a single if it's one the second it leaves the bat? Where's the reward for a good field placement, or even good bowling? You can't get a kid out LBW, so tell me why this new format is better for the bowlers, in any way. Just limiting extras isn't enough to cut it; it provides more ways for the kid at the other end to belt you around. It's a batsman's game, just as T20 is a batsman's game; it's a cynical attempt to raise participation at the lower levels, in order to sell Big Bash memberships, to kids who the second cricket ceases to be fun anymore - because, all of a sudden, they're going out, struggling to hit boundaries and unable to penetrate the infield and the runs have dried up - will up and leave for other sports. Moreover, your article is dismissive of the other position; that the junior formats are teaching kids the wrong things, and are rewarding bad habits over good practice. Why dedicate yourself to a good technique when the kid opposite you is belting boundaries over midwicket due to being bigger and there being limited fielders? Why learn how to bowl legspin or offspin, because your slower pace makes you easier to hit? And finally, I dispute yours - and Cricket Australia's - assertion that kids have more fun under the new formats. I've coached junior sides for the last 5 years; I'm hardly a dyed in the wall traditionalist. I mean it when I say that kids will have fun when they're coached well, and they won't when they aren't; cricket is not a game which needs buttressing or change to make it interesting or dynamic or participant friendly. Kids, when they learn cricket, recognise almost immediately its difference from other games, its uniqueness and its value. There is simply nothing like running in to bowl, or being at the other end of a pitch and facing a good bowler - or a bad one. There is an unspoken premise to your whole shebang; that cricket needs to change to be broadly appreciated. Cricket, as a sport, is fine; prior to the junior formats introduction, participation in the competitions in my region was rising, and had been for the last 5 years. We've formed a junior girls competition, which has only been around for the last 6-7 years, and every season since its inception it has grown. It is blatantly lazy to suggest that cricket needs to change to be appreciated, when if you are at grassroots level, you see the joy of kids learning to love a game that, for me, is a life long obsession. They did that, by the way, before the formats.
Rob
Guest
Maxwell is a classic example.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Scott you're comments have me wondering if you have kids playing Junior sport or have ever watched junior sport. We've had the same group of boys for two seasons now starting with under 8's and moving to under 9's. There's every chance that none of them will ever play elite cricket, but one or two of the boys are quite good so you never know. Most of the team are middle of the range for their age and we have a couple of boys whose skills are still developing. When we started in a 12 over innings the wides outnumbered the good balls. If we didn't have the modified rules some of the boys would never get a hit. They'd be out within a ball or two and then sit on the sidelines. They'd be gone from the game already. One of the dad's whose son will never be a rep cricketer let alone elite talks about how much his son can't wait to play cricket each week. The kid just went to his first test match last week and loved it. The cricketers who are going to play for Australia one day are always going to be playing "real cricket" as you term it by the time they reach 12, the rest though will be fans sitting on the seats watching them because they grew to love the game because of the opportunity to play they were given.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Only disagree with you about the scoring. We've had a team in Under 8's last year and Under 9's this year. Every kid wants to know how many runs they scored and wickets they've taken and they also want to know if they've won or not. We don't emphasize it and when our team has a big win we don't tell the kids how much they won by so as to not embarrass the other team, but learning how to win and lose is also a part of sport. We've been playing with the modified rules now for two season and they are a great balance between giving kids the opportunity to develop while also rewarding players who play well.
HarryT
Guest
My theory on quality players is that most of the junior rep teams are full of kids who have had intensive external coaching by a growing number of professional coaches. A lot of these kids have very good techniques, but many are not natural cricketers or athletes. I've seen some very naturally talented kids who can never get a start in the rep teams because their skills are raw and inconsistent. It is these naturally talented kids who make the great players, but sadly they are dropping out of the game in their teens.
Rob
Guest
I love when Australia play overseas. It sorts out all the perfect Techniques. Isn't it funny how the top order get out scored by the tail when the pitch isn't to there liking. I loved playing on a moving pitch, always cleaned up in the wickets and usually out scored most of the batsmen in the top order. Loved it as I would usually get a promotion up the order.
Working Class Rugger
Roar Guru
This effort was originally announced some time last year. Being looking for a way to improve the participation at the most junior levels. What was noted at the time was the overall development of technique in the game. A country they used as an example of possessing many players with great technique was India. Apparently, something they do in India is play off shorter pitches and allow players more time in the middle in order to develop that technique. So if that is the case and this program has used that model as its guide. Then wouldn't this actually assist in developing technique. Having to face bowling that is more accurate and having more opportunity to do so surely would assist this.
Rellum
Roar Guru
THis is the big difference between my generation and today's, how much backyard cricket do they play. That is where our strength as a cricketing nation came from, endless backyard cricket.
Rob
Guest
I don't get the technique crap? What happens to these well coached stylish players when the pitch isn't a road. Look at all the top batsmen and they have different techniques. I would say some of the greats don't have perfect techniques? Compare David Gower, David Warner, Brian Lara and there is nothing in common other than being left handed.